Instead of
By-hand peer-review management
Semantic search and ongoing monitoring over the profile base, with AI matching for more accurate and relevant results, so quality holds at a scale handwork cannot match.
For editorial teams, peer-review managers, and researcher-relations leads
Conflict-free, expert peer reviewers for any manuscript
Match every manuscript to independent, conflict-free reviewers across 99M+ researcher profiles, drawn from a far wider pool than your editors' personal networks reach. Semantic matching, with conflict-of-interest checks built into the search and no enterprise-tool learning curve.
CRISPR-Cas97
gene editing5
off-target effects3
single-cell sequencing3
gene therapy2
… 23 more
| # | Name | Score | Art. score | Articles | Own works | h-index | Citations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | E. Novak | CZ | 2.91 | 0.93 | 10 (512) | 310 | 64 | 21 000+ |
| 2 | T. Haugen | NO | 2.74 | 0.90 | 10 (188) | 121 | 31 | 4 100+ |
| 3 | M. Adeyemi | NG | 2.70 | 0.92 | 10 (164) | 96 | 28 | 3 600+ |
| 4 | J. Park | KR | 2.66 | 0.89 | 10 (221) | 143 | 35 | 5 800+ |
Used by 70+ research funders and scientific publishers, including:
Referee Finder
Find peer reviewers beyond your editors' own networks
Prophy is an AI reviewer-finding platform. For editorial departments that need to find high-quality peer reviewers quickly, it searches an extensive database of researcher profiles and matches each one to the manuscript in front of you. The result is access to a larger, well-organized pool of expert reviewers, and an efficient, informed selection process.
- Relevance from semantic matching. A fine-grained ontology plus modern semantic AI surfaces proper experts for each topic of an interdisciplinary manuscript, not the same known names every time.
- Every discipline covered. From physical and life sciences to social sciences and the humanities, including the recently active and emerging experts static citation databases miss.
- Every candidate explained. See each reviewer's most relevant articles and full profile, with conflicts of interest detected and independence verified, before the invitation goes out.
Keyphrase11
independent experts3
scientific process2
Neural network4
Machine learning3
Large language models2
… 23 more
| # | Name | Score | Art. score | Articles | Own works | h-index | Citations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | J. Andersson | GB | 2.80 | 0.90 | 10 (630) | 546 | 79 | 26 000+ |
| 2 | M. Rossi | IT | 2.67 | 0.91 | 10 (243) | 99 | 25 | 2 500+ |
| 3 | L. Zhang | ES · NL | 2.64 | 0.90 | 10 (143) | 83 | 25 | 2 300+ |
| 4 | C. Dubois | FR | 2.63 | 0.90 | 10 (200) | 112 | 20 | 1 400+ |
Conflict-free reviewers, with diversity built into the search
This is the cluster editorial leadership and your researcher-relations team care most about: review decisions you can stand behind.
Co-authorship and co-affiliation conflicts surface before the invitation goes out, not after. Conflict checks run in-house, so you avoid the unpredictability and credibility risk of outsourced services and strengthen the publisher's reputation.
Find diverse candidates with filters by gender, geography, and seniority over the profile base. You balance the editorial board and reviewer pool from the search itself, mitigating publication and editorial bias rather than tracking it on the side.
See Prophy on your own manuscript.
We'll walk you through the whole process on a real paper from your title.
Editors-in-Chief
Built for editors-in-chief and the people who run the journal
Editors-in-chief and peer-review managers carry the ultimate yes/no on review quality. Prophy gives them a fast, defensible answer.
- Find qualified reviewers fast, even for niche interdisciplinary work. Semantic search across the profile base replaces by-hand reviewer management, so quality stays consistent across subjects rather than depending on who the editor already knows.
- Compose and balance the editorial board. See the subject composition of the board, find a like-for-like substitute for a leaving editor, or invite an external expert as a guest editor for a special issue.
- Decisions you can defend. Every candidate carries a recorded reason and an exportable rationale, so review and board choices hold up to scrutiny.
Editorial board · Condensed Matter
+ find candidates
CM_1
CM_2
CM_3
CM_4
CM_5
CM_6
CM_7
CM_8
CM_9
Current panel score
CM_4 – Superconductivity8
8 documents · Current panel score: 58.40
| # | Name | Score | Detailed score | h-index | Citations | Details | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2214 | E. Kowalczykmember | f | 498 | 76 | 24 000+ | more | |
| 5471 | H. Yamamotomember | M | 451 | 63 | 15 000+ | less | |
|
Most recent affiliations
| |||||||
| 8067 | P. Silvamember | f | 402 | 49 | 8 600+ | more | |
Why publishers choose Prophy
Most editorial teams arrive from one of four current ways of working. Prophy replaces each of them.
Instead of
Outdated local databases
An extensive database including reviewers at 4–10 years of academic age, so you reach the recently active experts that static citation tools have not indexed yet.
Instead of
Unpredictable outsource services
Immediate conflict-of-interest flagging during selection, run in-house, for faster and more predictable reviewer choices and stronger publisher credibility.
Instead of
Clunky enterprise tools
A focused Referee Finder that automates matching and flags conflicts inline, for higher acceptance rates and timely, effective reviews, without the enterprise-tool learning curve.
Confidentiality
We declined generative AI on confidentiality grounds
Some publishers are building in-house reviewer tools on general-purpose generative AI, feeding confidential manuscripts into systems that may train on the input. We took a different decision.
- Prophy matches experts using unique non-human-readable digital fingerprints of texts. Manuscripts are processed as fingerprints for retrieval and matching, not read by a general-purpose model and not used to train one.
- The confidentiality of the manuscripts you evaluate is a design constraint, not a footer line. Deploy fully in-house for the strictest data-residency requirements.
- Transparency you can audit, not an opaque service: analysis of co-authorship and co-affiliation makes every reviewer choice defensible rather than a black box.
L. Marchetti
IT
3.23 score
Most similar articles top 7
- 2024Soil degradation drivers across Mediterranean agro-forest districts: a transdisciplinary assessment
- 2022Land-use change under varying ecological regimes and its influence on landscape stability
- 2019Long-term grazing management and its impact on semi-arid cropland resilience
✓Co-authorship with the manuscript's authors — none found
✓Shared affiliations — none found
✓Retracted articles — none
How it works
Contact
Leave a request and we'll get in touch to clarify your journal's needs.
Demo & trial
We tune peer-review settings to your titles and run Prophy on a real manuscript.
Integrate with EMS
Connect Prophy to ScholarOne, Aries, or eJournal Press via API, with Single Sign-On.
Reviewers in EMS
Reviewer candidates and suggested editors, delivered in seconds, in your workflow.
What review teams say
Dr. Veronika Schöpf
Head of department of natural sciences and technology, FWF
Prophy helps us and our board members to identify and select reviewers for research proposals. Especially for interdisciplinary research proposals Prophy has shown to be a great asset. The finding process is fast and convenient and comparison between suggested reviewers is a huge advantage.
Dr. Martine Vernooij
ETH Zurich, Office of Research
Prophy provides a very good basis to find appropriate peer reviewers for the evaluation of applications to our internal funding instruments and saves us a lot of time.
Questions publishers ask
Does Prophy integrate with our editorial management system?
Yes. Prophy connects to your EMS via API (ScholarOne, Aries Editorial Manager, eJournal Press, and similar) with Single Sign-On, so reviewer suggestions land in the workflow your editors already run.
How is our data handled, and do you train on it?
Your data belongs to you, and you can delete it at any time or set up lifecycle rules. We also don't train any models on your data.
How defensible is the conflict-of-interest and diversity output to our editorial board?
Every choice carries a recorded reason and an exportable coverage map: the audit trail editorial leadership asks for.
How does buying work, and what does it cost?
We'll walk you through what fits your title count and submission volume, with institutional terms rather than self-serve pricing.
How long does setup take, and what do editors have to learn?
Prophy is built for editors, not IT rollouts; there is no enterprise-tool learning curve, and most teams are running on a real manuscript within the trial.
How is this different from our current database, outsourcing, or manual process?
Prophy replaces clunky enterprise tools, outdated databases, outsourcing, and by-hand management with semantic matching and inline conflict checks across the profile base.
Explore more ways to use Prophy
Works with Aries Editorial Manager
Referee Finder inside the workflow your editors already use.
Explore
Compare Prophy to enterprise tools
How Prophy differs from enterprise reviewer tools, databases, and outsourcing.
Explore
Inside the Referee Finder
See how every candidate is matched, explained, and conflict-checked.
Explore
For research funders
Assign conflict-free grant reviewers, fast.
Explore